Case 3200561/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R King v Thorpe Hall School (Essex) Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200561/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs R King
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at East London Hearing Centre on 14, 15, 16 and 17 September 2021 before Employment Judge Lewis. The judgment records no substantive liability findings and is a disposal judgment only.
The proceedings against the First Respondent, Thorpe Hall School (Essex) Ltd, were dismissed by consent because it was agreed that Thorpe Hall School Trust was the correct employer. The judgment does not describe any determination of the underlying claim against the First Respondent.
The proceedings against the Second Respondent, Thorpe Hall School Trust, were then dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. No remedy was awarded and no legal test was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Proceedings against the First Respondent were dismissed by consent because the parties agreed the Second Respondent was the correct employer. The judgment does not record a substantive merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Proceedings against the Second Respondent were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. The judgment does not record a substantive merits determination. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.